Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[Phil Benson]

No. In fact, that's why they all turn in logbooks and you assure that it didn't happen. Also, to be fair, that's something we're waiting for. Parliament unanimously acted to bring in fatigue management based upon science, where the minister has moved forward the regulations. Hopefully before the next election we might actually sit down and start talking about it, and perhaps after the next election, depending on who's here, we can get together and see if it actually works.

Yes, it's a totally different procedure, regulated, mandated, and enforced, and I think, as you can see from Mr. Bradley and the industry, it's strongly supported by the industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We move to Ms. Young for two minutes.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Good morning. Thank you so much for all the comprehensive information we've received.

Very quickly, because I only have two minutes, all of you were quite passionate, when talking about the regulatory environment for truckers that has not kept up. Am I wrong about that? No? Okay. Why don't you submit to this committee in writing what it is you would like to see us do to keep that up? Obviously the technology and all of the things you've talked about today are things that you've put into place, and we have not kept up.

Also, is there a correlation between the 5% and 10% of companies that don't comply and the accidents? I don't know if anybody has done a study on that. Could I have a quick answer about that?

[Phil Benson]

On the first one, Mr. Bradley.... The CCMTA, which will be meeting next week, is composed of provincial, territorial, and federal things. It is actually like a constitutional meeting. These things take time. I think the minister and the department are in good stead in trying to push it forward. I'm not sure what the committee can do.

On the second one, I'd certainly disagree a bit with David on this one. I think the non-compliance is much higher than 5% and 10%. The trouble is there's not much we can do because we don't know. That's why the alternative logbook would be so significant, as we could actually...the reason being that when you don't know what somebody does, you have to start looking back when they bought gas, what time they checked out of a hotel.... This is literally a breathtaking waste of time for people. Again—

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

There's a gap between licensing, where they have to do what they are licensed for, I guess, and the fact that if they're not complying, there's a big yawning gap. What is happening with those companies that are not complying? That's the question.

[David Bradley]

If I could just make one comment....

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very quickly.

[David Bradley]

As I said, if we cleaned up the 5% to 10% we'd make great strides. It doesn't mean that's necessarily the level of non-compliance.

In our submission to you and the things we talked about today, the ELDs and the electronic stability control, we put those forward because those are the two things that are within the federal realm where you don't have to get tied up in all the provincial wrangling in order to get them done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

To close it off, Mr. Watson, for two minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

With respect to shipper documentation being provided to companies or drivers, you suggested there were some gaps, Mr. Bradley. Further, you said it was inspected by Transport Canada. I think Mr. Mai summarized your comments that there was lax enforcement. I don't know if I heard that from you.

Are you aware of how often Transport Canada inspects, or is that how you would characterize the inspection?

[David Bradley]

You're right; I didn't use the word lax, and I won't use the word lax. I think there's always room for improvement.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. I just wanted to be clear about that.

Properly classifying your dangerous goods before offering them for transport: who inspects that?

[Geoffrey Wood]

Transport Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Very good.

Training your employees to handle dangerous goods safely.

[Geoffrey Wood]

Transport Canada.

[David Bradley]

Or the province, again.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That companies actually have ERAPs for their commodities, is that Transport Canada?

[Geoffrey Wood]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are you aware of how often those elements might be inspected by Transport Canada? We intend to ask them those questions at some point.

[David Bradley]

No, because again, Transport Canada has delegated the administration of those regulations to the provinces; so Transport Canada doesn't actually do that enforcement. It's the provinces.

With respect to the trucking companies, with respect to the shippers, that is Transport Canada.

[Phil Benson]

The feds regulate; the provinces enforce. The feds don't put people out checking trucks. In some of the provinces, generally, the numbers for enforcement depend upon a province's will. In some provinces they don't have a lot of people out checking anything.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

My last question is on SMS. You have it voluntarily. Why would you resist a mandatory requirement? Do you not want a government audit?

[Phil Benson]

I'd just say it's because of the nature of the business. If you look at the air and the road worlds, which I deal with, you have relatively few people who do 99% of the work. In trucking, there are a few large companies that do a lot of the work, but there are so many individual contractors and small people, that to even have them.... They think they can do the job, but they can't do the work. They just can't do it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I meant for the companies that have them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Jeff, we're out of time.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for being here and participating in our study.

Everyone, we'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.